LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

Biblical Inerrancy in the 20th Century

Submitted to Dr. Bruce Snavely

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

CHHI 670 – D01

History of Evangelicalism

by

Caleb R. Brown

May 18, 2018

 Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………iii

Inerrancy, Higher-Biblical Criticism, Evangelicals, and Definitions of Words...v

Errors of the Broad Stroke Method………………………………………………..ix

Methodology to Define Inerrancy………………………………………………….xi

The Philosophical Idea of Inerrancy………………………………………………xii

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..xiv

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..xvi

ii
 Introduction

The twentieth- and twenty-first centuries have seen a considerable rise of higher

biblical criticism that have forced many denominations as well as modern Evangelicals to

rethink how they perceive and communicate their views concerning biblical inerrancy. In

light of this, Evangelicals need to think rightly about how others within their ranks define

inerrancy, because many are not doing so today. Some Evangelical scholars broadly

stroke and intellectually strike tools like higher-biblical criticism and place it in the realm

of an almost demonic activity. They imply that it is because it always leads to one having

to deny the authority of scripture. Is this true and is it logically coherent? Upon doing

research on higher-biblical criticism, one finds that there are Evangelicals who are

actually higher-biblical critics who hold to the ultimate authority of the Bible and the

infallibility of the message in Scripture.1 Logically and philosophically that idea is the

same one posed by the definition of the word inerrancy. Such is the confusing state of the

Evangelical landscape. Andrew David Naselli's Four Views on the Spectrum of

Evangelicalism reveal that very truth. Collin Hansen states, “Americans have little

trouble identifying an evangelical.”2 However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Evangelicals have a hard time identifying and defining what an “evangelical” is from

within their own ranks, let alone making a general statement that leaves it to being

1
James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical
Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 30, accessed
May 18, 2018. Proquest Ebook Central.
2
Collin Hansen, "Introduction," in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, eds. Andrew
David Naselli, Collin Hansen and Stanley N. Gundy, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 9.

iii
defined by Americans in general. Sweeney confirms as much when he says, “when

viewed from the perspective of our multiplicity, we evangelicals hold hardly anything in

common.”3 One can understand why some theologians don't want to be even cast into the

lot of being known as an evangelical because of the connotations the label brings within

its American context.4 Dayton says that the label evangelicalism projects is,

“theologically incoherent, sociologically confusing, and ecumenically harmful.”5 Dayton

is correct, and this paper's findings need to logically prove that before the issue of higher-

biblical criticism can even be properly addressed. The thesis of this paper is higher-

biblical criticism is neither good nor bad, but a tool or method that can actually be used

by Evangelicals to prove the veracity and authority of Scripture itself. However, the

arguments in this paper prove this without having to address higher-biblical criticism

with any detail at all. The method of higher-biblical criticism will be covered only briefly,

as it only needs to be covered briefly. The findings in performing this research actually

uncover a deeper problem that needs to be addressed among scholars. In order to discuss

the debate on biblical inerrancy, it is important to clearly define what it means and the

importance of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Simply put, inerrancy

means no error. Richard Greene, assistant editor with Decision Magazine, interviewed

Professor Norman Geisler, co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary, who helped

define the term and how it came to be a major source of contention that needed

addressing. In 1978 Geisler was a part of a large group of evangelicals who came

3
Douglas A. Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005), 20.
4
Ibid., 21.
5
Ibid.

iv
together to issue the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” In the interview Geisler

explains the necessity of the statement.

The conference was held in the wake of Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle
for the Bible. It was bringing to the consciousness of the Christian public the fact
that within the ranks of Christendom, even evangelical Christianity, many were
not affirming the historic doctrine of inerrancy. The Council wanted to take a
stand on the issue.6

Geisler explains that there can be no error in God’s word. He states, “everything in the

Bible is literally true, but not everything is true literally.”7 However, there is a

presupposition in the Chicago Statement that presupposes an idea that actually

undermines the sovereignty of God more than it does defend the authority of Scripture.

This is likely the understanding that some scholars have in mind when they have a

problem with the word inerrancy. However, this paper will address evangelical scholars

who hold to the authority of the Bible as well as present an even better view of the Bible

and view of God at the same time, and are ignored by their “fundamentalists” colleagues

who want to control the narrative and demonize their side of the story.

Inerrancy, Higher-Biblical Criticism, Evangelicals, and Definitions of Words

The confusion begins when one wants to do research to understand just what an

evangelical or higher-biblical critic is. The idea of trying to define just what biblical

inerrancy specifically means doesn’t get any easier. Immediately a person who does not

6
Richard Greene, “Take a Stand on Biblical Inerrancy”, accessed May 17, 2018,
https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/may-2014/take-a-stand-on-biblical-inerrancy/
7
Ibid.

v
know “what” any of these are can discern that there are some competing ideas that don't

logically seem to line up. Thus, it must imply people must define these words much

differently. It could also mean the problem lies in it being a philosophical one at best, and

a sinful one at worst. The issue gets more confusing when two individuals who can agree

that they hold to the authority of the Bible and they both agree on being an evangelical. It

is the words that are chosen in defining inerrancy where evangelicals come away with

two competing views concerning higher-biblical criticism. This paper will presuppose

that an evangelical is one who affirms the inerrancy of Scripture as viewed from the

American Evangelical's context. Blomberg discusses the mistake people make by

confusing inerrancy with literal interpretation.8 Blomberg states, “Even the expression

“literal interpretation,” as it was employed by the Reformers, meant taking the words of

Scripture according to their most straightforward, intended meaning, not ignoring

figurative language.”9 Most all evangelicals who define themselves as such attest to this.

Douglas Sweeney describes Alister McGrath's six fundamental convictions that control

“what” an evangelical actually is with the first parameter being, “the Supreme authority

of Scripture as a source of knowledge of God and a guide to Christian living” (emphasis

added and mine).10 However, if someone presupposed that the definition of evangelical

that Alister McGrath lays out is an affirmation of inerrancy in defining the word of God

they would be wrong. While it may seem to be the case as cited here by Sweeney,

McGrath openly denies it as such. Is there something lurking behind the words chosen in

8
Craig Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible: An Evangelical Engagement with
Contemporary Questions, (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2014), 127.
9
Ibid.
10
Sweeney, 18

vi
McGrath's definition of evangelicalism that gives way to how he personally defines

inerrancy? Indeed there is. As confusing as it may be to some, McGrath does not hold to

inerrancy at all, at least not the American view point of it.11 How can that be based upon

what Sweeney cited about McGrath's definition of evangelicalism? Kevin DeYoung, in a

blog concerning a debate among scholars wrote on the Gospel Coalition’s website and

expressed his emotional and confusing frustration concerning Alister McGrath.12

DeYoung says, “McGrath’s response was disappointing. He explained that he doesn’t

like the term because it sounds too self-assured, like we have everything figured out and

our interpretations are all correct. He prefers to speak of the Bible as “reliable and

trustworthy.”13 The answer to the confusion is more complex than evangelicals realize

because it seems to be a cultural one as well. When viewed from a historical and cultural

context, while also allowing grace and humility to enter in, a clearer picture comes into

focus on the evangelical kaleidoscope. The article in The Gospel Coalition reveals much

in just a few words. Anyone can sense the issues concerning the high emotional tensions

that arise amongst evangelicals on this issue concerning inerrancy and Scripture. Kevin

DeYoung's emotions are evidence of the very problem that this paper presents. The

problem lies deeper than the “definition” of words and evangelicals’ use of them. The

problem that evangelicals have is pride. The problem that is within evangelicalism,

(especially evangelicals from within philosophical, theological, and scholarly circles) is

that pride wells up amongst them as in any other place in society. Outsiders viewing such

11
Kevin DeYoung, “Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy,” in blog from The Gospel Coalition, accessed
May 16, 2018.https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/whos-afraid-of-inerrancy/
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.

vii
scholarly debates are likely to be confused because the problems being debated are

philosophical and strategical, not legal and moral. Unfortunately, scholars confuse these

ideas amongst themselves as well. The same problem happens in other fields and

professions; however, the world is watching evangelicalism more closely.

The previous story presents the competition that actually gets quite fierce within

scholarly circles. As each scholar attempts to define ideas in a word, definitions to a word,

and how to use each word and each idea, discerning hearts and minds disengage on such

trivial issues. The philosophical truth bomb that McGrath presents reveals a lot about

how some scholars confuse the issue of inerrancy. Less discerning Evangelicals need to

understand and consider the cultural and philosophical nuances behind the language

revealed about McGrath's definition. Until evangelicals broadly understand this, they will

miss why this repeatedly happens. Philosophical and cultural ignorance is the confusion

that McGrath exposes. Sometimes it confuses the hearts and minds of the faithful like

DeYoung. When DeYoung got disappointed with McGrath's answer, was it because he

just wanted him to use the words “inerrancy”? Did DeYoung not understand the

explanation presented by McGrath because he was unaware of McGrath's definition of

evangelicalism that reveals (philosophically) that he just presented the same idea implied

by “inerrancy”? Does it show a deeper problem? Does DeYoung's disappointment in

McGrath's answer expose the broad context of how and why this issue keeps coming

back up among evangelicals? The philosophical and cultural confusion is what McGrath

attempts to explain by his answer. The possible sin problem is exposed when evangelicals

don't like the words used while ignoring his reasoning for not using those words. This

paper will argue it is quite possible that an evangelical can fail to defend one's own

viii
affirmative position of biblical authority and inerrancy when they place their traditions

and presuppositions over the decency of considering where opposing views are coming

from. This seems to be McGrath's gracious way of explaining this to his brethren without

trying to hurt his colleagues' intellectual feelings. There are some who apparently

disagree, and specifically present agendas to demonize by intellectually striking those

that hold McGrath's position. Rather innocently, others just disagree without seeing the

need to “redefine” words that already have “definite” definitions. However, those who

still ignorantly and broadly reject ideas such as high-biblical criticism and paint

evangelicals who practice such methods reveal an agenda that negates the authority of

scripture that they say they defend. One case concerning how evangelicals broadly paint

the very idea of higher-biblical criticism as being one that leads to deny the authority of

scripture will be presented in the next paragraph.

Errors of the Broad Stroke Method

Gregory Beale, an Orthodox Presbyterian scholar and evangelical reveals he has

blind spots within his theology. It exposes another problem and weakness within

evangelicalism itself. But this is not a new problem. It has happened throughout the

course of human history. In Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New

Challenges to Biblical Authority, Beale shows a dialogue between two scholars that are

named “traditionalist” Tom and “progressive” Pat. The fact that Beale uses the word

traditionalist to describe Tom ever so slightly reveals the side of the argument that Beale

is already on the side of, and that is Tom. How can the reader tell this? Because if Beale

used the word Traditional Tom and Progressive Pat, one could not judge that Beale is yet

ix
on the side of any specific view. However, the truth would have been better if Beale

referred to Tom as Fundamentalist Fred rather than “traditional” Tom. Beale states after

the dialogue the aims of his book, and thus the purpose of showing the dialogue between

the scholars was to give the reader a, “small peak” into the broader discussion about the

authority of scripture.14 Beale states, “the preceding dialogue is only a small peek into a

much broader discussion about the authority of scripture today among evangelical,

biblical and theological scholars.”15 His statement reveals the very problem within

evangelicalism and the problem with Beale's book concerning his opinion of higher-

biblical criticism glaring brightly in the first fourteen pages shining right at the reader.

The dialogue does not specify that “progressive” Pat is a higher-biblical critic, because

he's called a progressive. However the dialogue reveals this by implication that Pat likely

is. It also stands to reason why Beale calls him a “progressive” in attempts to demonize

this position. Another striking feature is that the dialogue between the two men says

nothing about the authority of scripture or biblical infallibility. Beale just presupposes

that Progressive Pat's position leads to this idea. The two scholars presented by Beale had

a discussion about Isaiah and authorship, not inerrancy of scripture. The case that

Progressive Pat lays out never undermines the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture, Beale

just philosophically presupposes this, and he uses the American Evangelical definition of

the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to back his position. The Chicago Statement

14
Gregory Beale, Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to
Biblical Authority, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008), 14.
15
Ibid.

x
is one that many evangelicals present as a solid nuanced definition, but believe it still

needs to be modified and revised. Brown states,

Present developments in the doctrine of Scripture require a revised CSBI

to address the following matters: the nature of biblical authority; the nature of
written revelation; the centrality of narrative as a biblical genre; the diversity of
the biblical discourse; recent changes in the discipline of textual criticism; the
relationship between providence and inspiration; the nature of biblical
phenomena; the human authorship of Scripture; and the validity of doctrinal
development.16

Brown presents a method concerning biblical inerrancy that all evangelicals should

consider. One that does not undermine the idea behind biblical inerrancy as others such

as Beale attempt to define it. Brown is not alone. Roger Olson states that defenders of

inerrancy do not even agree among themselves what it actually means with the Chicago

Statement killing the concept for them to be able to do so.17

Methodology to Define Inerrancy

When evangelicals go through lengths to defend their own tradition by

demonizing other methods, they lose. How is this? Because they fail in defending the

very thing they say they are attempting to defend. “Loose” definitions of words, mixed

with “definite” definitions of words reveal an agenda to make a point. This is what Beale

does. This undermines the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. A critical method can be

helpful for evangelicals when it is utilized to reveal God's truth. Cheryl Anderson

explains the critical method is one that means any biblical text requires the attention to be

16
D.J. Brown, A Theological Reassessment and Reformulation of the Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy in Light of Contemporary Developments, (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2014), 5. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
17
Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of History and Reform,
Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 183.

xi
evaluated rather than just accepted and blindly obeyed by people.18 She presents a

thoughtful analysis because undermining ideologies need to be evaluated thoroughly

because the Bible has been abused in the past to control masses and cause harm. This has

happened over the course of human history as some have used the Bible to defend slavery

as well as speak against slavery while examining the exact same text. Any such ideology

that prevents the gospel from advancing must be rejected from a philosophical

evangelical point of view.

Scholars attempt to control the narrative, as they should. That is what scholars

with a Christian Worldview should do in order for a lost world to know God more

intimately. There are scholars that do not like the language that other scholars use. It

reveals a problem when they are philosophically and logically leading to the same idea

and they ignore the explanation presented by the other to defend why they view it a

certain way. When dismissed and ignored, the root cause is pride and it can lead others to

philosophical confusion. Grace can allow evangelicals to come to a philosophical

reconciliation.

The Philosophical Idea of Inerrancy

This paper has argued to this point and proved why Dayton's statement cited in

the introduction is a logical truth. Even as radical as Sweeney seems to think that it is.

However, Dayton is attempting to clear the air about the general idea the “label” of

evangelicalism lends itself to. In Dayton and Strong's Rediscovering an Evangelical

18
Cheryl Anderson, Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive
Biblical Interpretation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 7.

xii
Message, they walk through how the cultural and dynamic nuances of America's history

have shaped the way modern evangelicals are not only perceived, but also why modern

evangelicals are dealing with the issues this paper is addressing.19 They state that

extensive immigration produced different ethnic denominations in a post -Civil War

period, and they followed their own dynamic while also being subjected to American

influences.20 The dynamic that Dayton and Strong present is quite complex and explains

why the context of the American Evangelical presentation of inerrancy is so nuanced.

Dayton believes and understands a radical approach to call for a moratorium on

evangelical “labels” is the best strategy that should be employed to save a lost world. In

other words, if the idea of what the label “evangelical” as it presents itself today to many

outside of the body of Christ, Dayton believes it best to put a death knell in it if it causes

people to not come to Christ. This would mean that the idea of “biblical” evangelism that

holds to the authority of Scripture must be communicated to the lost world by not

allowing the lost world to be the only ones that define and interpret what an evangelical is.

Logically, this idea is going to lend itself to confusion. When evangelical scholars keep

confusing a lost world that is already confused, there is bound to be souls lost while the

battles ensue from within evangelism's scholarly ranks. It will also lead the less

spiritually mature in the body of Christ to only create further division and confusion

because they are going to mimic their leaders. When evangelicals focus more on the

internal struggles to win the debate over how to define the same logical idea by means of

19
Donald W. Dayton and Strong, Douglas M. Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A
Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014),
20
Ibid.

xiii
others only using the words they want to be used, the logical idea of the truth of the

gospel is compromised. The heart of the matter is that this is a matter of the heart.

Conclusion

The method this paper used to prove the thesis is to show how the ultimate

findings in researching the definitions of biblical inerrancy, evangelical, and higher-

biblical criticism logically lead to higher-biblical criticism being a tool and a method that

an evangelical can use to prove the infallibility, ultimate authority, and inerrancy of

Scripture. Very generally, this method can be proved to be true even if the higher-biblical

critic is an atheist with an agenda. It is a philosophical matter that has to do with the

interpretation of the data. An atheist begins without the possibility of a creator God, so

while the data the higher biblical critic may find can be good, right, and true, the atheist is

bound to interpret that data much differently than say, an Evangelical higher-biblical

critic with a Christian worldview. The same sort of method happens in the scientific

community. That being said, the heart of the matter is when either data or idea reveals

truth, it is from God. The Bible backs up this statement in Ephesians 5:9, for fruit of light

is found in all that is good and right and true.21 This paper uncovers the fundamental

problem. That being, the issue at hand concerning biblical inerrancy ultimately does not

have anything to do with the choice of words used to prove the same logical idea. The

idea that the definition of inerrancy produces different ways of explaining the thing. If

McGrath doesn’t like the word inerrancy, but would rather propose a definition such as

21
"Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version."

xiv
the one mentioned earlier. He certainly has a philosophical as well as biblical obligation

to do so, which he does. McGrath is actually quite graceful in handling the intellectual

abuse that he has for many years. His definition philosophically presupposes an even

better view of Scripture and a Higher view of the Trinitarian Godhead than the word

inerrancy can ever possibly do. Proudly denying this uncovers sin in the lives of the body

of Christ amongst Evangelicals. Scholars attempt to control the narrative, which is what a

definition philosophically is. This is not to be viewed as a negative thing. There are other

scholars that do not like the language that other scholars use, and that is ok too. However,

it uncovers a sin problem when they recognize it philosophically and logically leads to

the same idea or even better definition than their own word and they choose to demonize

their colleagues, and brothers in Christ with philosophical undertones that presuppose this.

Evangelical scholars, no matter which side they are on in the inerrancy debate should

realize this and call this what it is. Scholars have feelings too, and words cut deeply. It’s

like being stabbed in public by a friend while everyone else is watching it happen, but

they just don’t see it. They need to know what is going on. The root cause is pride and it

can lead the lost into philosophical confusion. Grace will allow evangelical scholars to

come to a philosophical reconciliation.

xv
 Bibliography

Anderson, Cheryl. Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for
Inclusive Biblical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Beale, Gregory K. Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New

Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008.

Blomberg, Craig. Can We Still Believe the Bible: An Evangelical Engagement with
Contemporary Questions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2014.

Brown, D.J. A Theological Reassessment and Reformulation of the Chicago Statement on

Biblical Inerrancy in Light of Contemporary Developments. PhD diss., Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Dayton, Donald W., and Strong, Douglas M. Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage : A

Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2014.

DeYoung, Kevin.“Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy.” Taken from blog, The Gospel Coalition.
Accessed May 17, 2018. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-
deyoung/whos-afraid-of-inerrancy/

Greene, Richard. “Take a Stand on Biblical Inerrancy.” Accessed May 17, 2018.
https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/may-2014/take-a-stand-on-biblical-
inerrancy.

Hoffmeier, James Karl, and Dennis Robert Magary. Do Historical Matters Matter to
Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture.
Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and
Reform. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.

Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement.

Grand Rapids. Baker, 2005.

xvi
xvii